TO AMEND THE WORLD WAR VETERANS' ACT OF 1924

MONDAY, MAY 12, 1930

UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2 o'clock p. m., in room 312, Senate Office Building, Hon. Reed Smoot presiding. Present: Senators Smoot (chairman), Reed, Shortridge, Couzens, Greene, Deneen, La Follette, Thomas of Idaho, George, Barkley, Thomas of Oklahoma, and Connally.

Present also: Hon. John E. Rankin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Mississippi.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. I understand that Congressman Rankin wants to make a statement before the committee.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. RANKIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I desire to direct my remarks largely to section 10, which amends section 200 of the World War veterans' act of 1924.

In the beginning, permit me to say that I agree with the Wood amendment on the proposition of leaving the comptroller in the Veterans' Bureau. When that amendment came up on the floor of the House, sponsored by Mr. Wood, of Indiana, those of us who were ostensibly in the minority agreed to it. I agree with it now.

I desire to say also that there are two amendments adopted that I think ought to be eliminated. In the first place, I think the amendment offered by Mr. Cochran, of Missouri, which denies to the bureau the right to rebut evidence as to the origin of a disability, should not have been adopted. That amendment should be removed.

The amendment offered by Mr. Connery, of Massachusetts, bringing all disabilities up to 1930, was too broad. I thought so at the time, and said so on the floor, and I think it should be eliminated.

When this matter first arose, I introduced the first bill. That is, it was taken up before the committee first, and that was to amend section 200 of the World War veterans' act, as you will observe on page 15, beginning in line 15, with the proviso, going down to and including the word "claim," in line 16 on page 16.

We provided in that bill, as is provided in the Rankin amendment, which Mr. John Thomas Taylor did not seem to know was in the bill

the other day, but which was inserted and is in there now-we provided that those men suffering from tuberculosis, neuropsychiatric diseases and other chronic constitutional diseases prior to January 1930 should be presumed to have received their disabilities in the service. We did that because it was the only way in which we could take care of these men who are now dying at the rate of 72 a day. Many of them are dying for the want of attention. The wives and children of many of them are living upon charity. They served honorably during the World War, and in my humble judgment, especially the tubercular men and the neuropsychiatric men, owe their disabilities to their war services.

Let me now answer the propaganda that has been disseminated throughout the country about the cost of this bill. I see statements in the paper to the effect that it would cost three or four hundred million dollars a year. How any man could ever reach that conclusion by the wildest stretch of imagination is incomprehensible to nie. So, in that connection, I just take the figures of the Director of the Veterans' Bureau, as given not only on the witness stand here, but given on the witness stand before the Committee on World War Veterans Affairs in the House.

The CHAIRMAN. The director did say it would cost, probably, $400,000,000.

Mr. RANKIN. Wait. I am going to show you that he was not talking about this Rankin bill, or the Rankin amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. He was talking about this bill.

Mr. RANKIN. I am speaking of the original bill that I introduced. The CHAIRMAN. That is a much different proposition.

Mr. RANKIN. I am speaking of the proposition covered by the amendment which we put in in the House. You understand, our proposition was not to go out and take in everybody that had any disability at all, but to take in only those suffering from tuberculosis, neuropsychiatric troubles, nervous and mental diseases, and other chronic constitutional diseases. It would cost, according to the director's figures, between $42,000,000 and $44,000,000 a year. That was his statement before the Committee on World War Veterans Affairs. That was his statement here in response to my question the other day.

But while we were holding hearings on this bill, if you will permit me to go back for a minute, all at once it was sidetracked in the committee, and they began hearings on another bill. To my surprise they brought in a bill that provided that all disabilities prior to 1925 should be presumed to be of service origin. To use the very example that its proponents used there, they said a man who went out and stubbed his toe, or even a man who broke his leg in 1924, would come under that provision. They brought that bill to the floor of the House, leaving out these tubercular men, leaving out these neuropsychiatric men, who had broken down since 1925, and it was our duty then to offer such amendments as we could get adopted. They seemed to be bent on passing this bill with that broad base, so, rather than to try to trim it down in the House, I offered this amendment on top of it, which would have brought in only the cases I mentioned, the tubercular cases, the neuropsychiatric cases, and other chronic constitutional diseases up to 1930, and would have entailed an additional cost of $31,000,000.

Mr. Johnson's bill, up to 1925, would have cost $76,000,000, and with mine superimposed on it, would have cost $31,000,000 more, or $108,000,000 a year; that is, if they used the figures furnished by the Veterans' Bureau. If they had the Johnson bill entirely out, and merely took the provisions of the original Rankin bill, which is supported by the ex-service men from the Lakes to the Gulf, and from ocean to ocean, it would not have cost more than $44,000,000 a year. That is what we advocate here.

I have only one suggestion to make. I would strike out the word "constitutional" and make it "all chronic diseases." I understand that would make little or no difference in the cost. The reason I do that is because there are a few cases that are said to be chronic that are not constitutional, one of which is phlebitis, and possibly nephritis, and a few other diseases of that kind. I happen to know of one man now who has not walked a step in five or six years, and will never walk again, a man with whom I went to school. My honest judgment is, and the judgment of the local physicians, at my home, who have known him all his life, is that that condition was caused by his drilling for 18 months in the Marine Corps. He has chronic phlebitis and is not drawing a cent from the Government.

Another thing. By the provisions of the present law we are discriminating against the best soldiers we had, and some of the most patriotic men we had. A man came out of the Army. He had gone through the training camps. He had had influenza, and he had taken a shot for everything that the medical profession could possibly think of, it seemed to me. He had gone overseas and stood in the wet trenches and in the cold, under shell fire; he had gone over the top in the face of withering gunfire; he came back here, and when he left the service he said, "Why, I am in as good shape as I ever was. I do not want anything. I am willing, and I am able to support my family." Tens of thousands of them thought they were. Many of them

Senator THOMAS of Oklahoma. On that point, Mr. Rankin, is it not a fact that many of these boys, when they came back and were about to be discharged, believing that they might be held in hospitals, or held by the Government for a long time, really said that they were all right when, in fact, they knew that they were not all right, in order to get home immediately?

Mr. RANKIN. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. An examination ought to have proved that. They were all examined.

Mr. RANKIN. Right there, I beg the Senator's pardon. I was in a battery with 206 young fellows from every State in this Union, and all in the world they did was to strip us. We went through the room, and did not come any closer to the doctor than I am to the stenographer here. He never put his hand on a one of us that I saw. We told him that we were all right. Hundreds of thousands of other fellows got out of the Army in the same way. The examination, when they came to discharge a man was invariably no examination at all. But these fellows came back and undertook to carry on. Many of them had a hacking cough. It is a strange thing to me, but the average man with tuberculosis does not seem it want to admit it. I have noticed that before the war, and I have noticed it since the war.

After 1925 he had to give up. He broke down. There are 18,000 of them now lying flat on their backs, not all of them in hospitals, but thousands of them at home, unable to go to the hospitals. They write to me that they are working and trying to take of their families, because they can not afford to go to a hospital, even if there were hospital room. They broke down after 1925-these tubercular menand now when they come in we say "you are barred by the statute of limitations, by that arbitrary date of 1925, which we put into the law of 1924."

Not only that, but I do not know of anything that put a greater strain on the nerves of young men than the World War. There was a book recently published by a young German private in the ranks called All Quiet on the Western Front. In this book he says that the war destroyed a generation of young men, and the more I see of the young men who went through that conflict the more I am inclined to agree with him. There are 23,000 of these men to-day who are nervous wrecks, many of them crazy, and who are unable to make a living for themselves. My humble judgment is that the majority of them owe that disability to their service in the World War.

I know it was brought out on the floor of the House, and elsewhere, that tuberculosis among these men was not any greater per capita than among the general population, but the man who makes that argument overlooks the fact that these were picked men. They talk about taking men into the Army. They gave you a thorough examination of every kind, and these men that were taken in were picked men. They were sound men.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Mr. Rankin, I was about to ask that question. You have told us in brief the character of the examination when the boys were discharged.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes, sir.

Senator SHOTRIDGE. What have you to tell us, from your knowledge or observation, as to the examination made when they were taken into the service?

Mr. RANKIN. The only thing I can say, Senator, is as to myself and the few men I saw examined. But they gave us a thorough examination, and in some cases, where there was the slightest doubt, I have seen them examine the same man three or four times. Then when we got to camp, we were reexamined, and I saw many, many men turned back who did not want to go back home, because they found some little defect in their physical makeup.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Your argument in respect to the comparison of the percentages of those suffering from tuberculosis, for example, who were in the service, and those who were not in the service, is that that fact ought to be considered, namely, that those who went into the service were picked men who were thoroughly examined, and were presumably 100 per cent perfect physically.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes, sir; if you should go out to-day and select the same number of young men, young men who were born, we will say, about 1910, and examine them, and pick them just as they did for the Army, and then wait 15 years and examine them, you would find, in my opinion and I think the medical profession will bear me outthat there would be a great deal smaller percentage of those men with tuberculosis, or with neuropsychiatric troubles, or heart trouble,

for instance, or rheumatism, paralysis, and other diseases that these soldiers are suffering from, than would be the case with the same number of people just picked up from private life generally.

My idea is to strike from this bill all amendments to section. 200, and insert this amendment which I have indicated here. When you do, you will be backed up by the service men in every State in this Union.

Senator THOMAS of Oklahoma. What do you mean by the amendment you have indicated? Do you mean striking out the word "constitutional"?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Strike out all this amendment to section 200, and insert this amendment beginning on page 15, line 15, and going down to and including the word "claim" in line 16, page 16. That will take in these men who are suffering from these chronic diseases. The CHAIRMAN. The House has already passed that. Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Strike out all but that.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean every amendment on section 200? Mr. RANKIN. Yes, sir. I am in favor of striking out the entire Johnson bill, so far as section 200 is concerned, for the simple reason that it goes far beyond anything the veterans have asked for. It gces out and picks up every man who has stubbed his toe, every man who has had any disability at all up to 1925, and leaves out the very men for whom the service organizations and the American people are pleading for relief.

The CHAIRMAN. You think that ought to be brought up to January 1, 1930, do you?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes, sir. The reason, Senator, that I say it ought to be brought up to 1930

The CHAIRMAN. I understood that you said before in relation to it, but I was wondering, now, after the statement you have just made, whether you would insist upon that going in.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That was all I wanted to know.

Mr. RANKIN. Unless you bring this amendment up to 1930, this presumptive period, you can not take care of these disabled men. If we cut it off at 1925, we will not be doing anything for the tubercular men or the neuropsychiatric men. They were all brought up to that point. Why were they brought up to that point in the beginning? Because the medical profession realized then that these disabilities were growing and developing long years after the war closed.

So far as I am individually concerned, I might say to you what I have said everywhere else. I do not care whether they are disabilities originating in the service or not. I am in favor of taking care of them if they served honorably and are now disabled.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, why have any limit at all?

Mr. RANKIN. There are two reasons why we put the limit at 1930. In the first place, that brings them up to date. In the second place, we have a bill before the Congress to appoint a select committee of five members from the House and five from the Senate to work out a plan for soldiers' relief in the future, and this bill has a life limit of three years. We must work that out within that time. We can not

go on always in the haphazard manner we are going now. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the proposition is to make a pension bill.